Quick-Kill Traps in Wildlife Damage Management

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Use of Wildlife Damage Management Methods by USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services

Chapter XIV

The Use of Quick-Kill Traps in Wildlife Damage Management

December 2017

USE OF QUICK-KILL TRAPS IN WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services (WS) Program uses quick-kill traps to capture a variety of animals including small rodents, such as mice and moles, and larger mammals, such as raccoons and beaver. For specific wildlife management projects, mostly where a need exists to resolve a wildlife damage situation. Wildlife can cause damage to property, agriculture, and natural resources or cause human health and safety concerns; for example, quick-kill traps may be used to capture a mole that is in a yard or wildlife for disease surveillance. WS uses quick-kill traps extensively for wildlife damage management operations. Quick-kill traps are used in many settings including urban and rural areas. WS personnel use quick-kill traps in accordance with WS Directive 2.450.

Potential human health and environmental risks from the proposed use of all types of quick-kill traps including rotating-jaw (body-gripping) traps, snap traps, gopher traps, mole traps, and captive bolt traps by WS have been evaluated by APHIS, WS and determined that the risks to human health and the environment are low. Quick-kill traps can capture nontarget species, but capture rates are low compared to overall take. Quick-kill traps have minimal risks to people, pets, and nontarget species. WS will continue to support and conduct research and education that supports more humane and effective trapping methods and will implement these measures in programs, where appropriate, to further reduce risk to nontarget animals.

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Quick-kill Traps...... 2 1.2 Use Pattern of Quick-kill Traps ...... 4 2 HAZARDS ...... 5 2.1 Human Health and Safety ...... 5 2.2 Environmental ...... 6 3 RISKS ...... 7 3.1 Human Health and Safety ...... 7 3.2 Environmental ...... 8 4 UNCERTAINTIES AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 9 5 SUMMARY ...... 10 6 LITERATURE CITED ...... 10 7 PREPARERS ...... 10 7.1 APHIS-WS Methods Risk Assessment Committee ...... 10 7.2 Internal Reviewers ...... 12 Appendix 1. “Other Species” Included in Tables ...... 13

1 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS) Program uses many different styles of quick-kill traps to take animals to alleviate damage and for disease monitoring and research. Quick-kill traps are designed to induce the rapid death of target animals that trigger the trap. Quick-kill traps are available in a variety of designs to capture animals including small rodents, such as mice and moles, and larger mammals, such as raccoons1 and beaver. Some quick-kill traps, such as snap traps, can be modified to capture bird species. Despite variations in size and design, quick-kill traps are passive devices that share a common means of capturing animals and inducing a rapid death. Quick- kill traps generally have one or two capture arms, which, when closed, grip the target animal or in some cases, impale the target animal with sharp metal spikes (e.g., traps designed for moles in subterranean tunnels) or a captive bolt fired using compressed carbon dioxide cartridges. In general, quick-kill traps include rotating-jaw traps, snap traps, gopher traps, mole traps, and captive bolt traps, which the following subsections discuss in more detail. Most of these traps are also considered body-gripping traps and we would have selected this as the general term for quick-kill traps, but we included captive bolt traps and some mole traps that are not body-gripping traps. Thus, we used quick-kill as the all-encompassing term for this document.

In 1996 the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), working cooperatively with federal and private partners, embarked on a goal to develop voluntary Best Management Practices (BMPs) for trapping furbearers in the United States (Batcheller et al. 2000). The stated purpose and intent of AFWA in developing the BMPs was to: “Scientifically evaluate traps and trapping systems used for capturing furbearers in the United States.” AFWA determined the best methods by species2, but primarily targeted harvest by private fur trappers and not take in WDM activities. Evaluations of trap performance were based on animal welfare, efficiency, capture rate, selectivity, practicality, safety, mechanical function, cost, quality, durability, weight, and maintenance requirements (Fall 2002). Science-based literature and research on the variety of traps and snares were used by AFWA to develop the BMPs. The evaluation of BMPs continues and BMPs are updated as research results warrant (AFWA 2017). BMPs were provided to state and federal wildlife agencies as well as trappers and the public in the form of a general overview for traps and trapping, and specifically the most efficient and humane methods for trapping 24 furbearer species in the United States (AFWA 2017). The goals have been to promote regulated trapping as a modern wildlife management tool, identify practical traps and trapping techniques while continuing to improve efficiency, selectivity, and the welfare of trapped animals through research, to provide specifications for traps that meet BMP criteria for individual species in various regions of the United States, to provide wildlife management and trap industry professionals with information to evaluate trapping systems in the United States; and to instill public confidence in and maintain public support for wildlife management and trapping through distribution of science-based information. AFWA (2017) focused on private trappers and realized that trapping for depredation control was different. The BMP program utilizes international humane trapping standards consistent with the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards among the European Union, Canada, and Russia. WS has adopted these standards, where feasible, for trapping in the United States and conducts research on different trapping.

1 See the Introduction to Risk Assessments – Chapter I for scientific names. These are only given if not used in that Section 2 Furbearers with AFWA (2017) trapping BMPs include Virginia opossum, beaver, muskrat, nutria, Canada lynx, bobcat, coyote in Eastern U.S., coyote in Western U.S. (both eastern and western United States populations have own BMPs since eastern coyotes are larger as a result of hybridizing with wolves), gray wolves, red fox, swift/kit fox, arctic fox, gray fox, river otter, fisher, American marten, weasel (least, long-tailed, and short-tailed), mink, American badger, ringtail, raccoon, and striped skunk.

WS Policy (WS Directive 2.450, 06/15/20173) states that the use of the BMP trapping guidelines developed and promulgated by AFWA (2017) for private fur harvest and other trapping activities are valuable and should be followed as practical. WS uses the BMP guidelines as the basis for policy formulation, but recognizes that some quick-kill traps used in WDM are not commercially available and that not all devices recommended in the BMP guidelines for general public-use meet the more stringent performance requirements, particularly for efficiency and durability, for use in federal wildlife management activities. The WS Directive also discusses the fact that traps need to be set so that captured animals are not conspicuous to the public, particularly along public roads and trails; this reduces the possibility of a member of the public attempting to free an animal and getting injured and trap theft. Quick-kill traps are typically placed in areas where the public will not haphazardly stumble onto a trap or a trapped animal. Quick-kill traps also incorporate devices such as “otter- safe” triggers to prevent or reduce the capture of nontarget animals, unless such use would preclude capture of the intended target animals.

1.1 Quick-kill Traps

Quick-kills traps are available in a variety of designs and sizes to target a wide range of animals. Target animal species may range from small rodents, such as mice and shrews, to birds, such as woodpeckers, and larger animals, such as beavers and badgers. However, the intent of all quick-kill traps is to close around or strike an animal with enough force to kill the animal quickly.

 Rotating-jaw traps, also commonly referred to as body-grip traps (Figure 1), generally consist of a pair of rectangular metal frames, also known as jaws, which quickly close like scissors when triggered. When not in use or when triggered, a spring or springs hold the rectangular rotating metal jaws closed. Opening the arm(s) applies tension to the spring(s). A latch that is commonly referred to as the “dog” holds the metal rotating frames open with the spring or springs held under tension. The dog is attached to a trigger that is set to release the dog when a target animal trips the trigger, which releases the tension on the springs and closes the rotating metal frames quickly with tremendous force. The trigger is placed inside the Figure 1. A set rotating-jaw rotating-jaws so the target animal trips the trigger as they enter into the trap (a 120 Conibear®). (Picture from Amazon.com) trap. Rotating-jaw traps should be placed to ensure the metal frames close on either side of the neck of the target animal to ensure the force of the closing frames causes a quick death.

Rotating-jaw traps are available in a variety of sizes depending on the type of animal to be captured and the manufacturer. The Conibear® trap (Figure 1) is the primary brand used. The sizes and standard target species are:

3 All WS Policy Directives referenced in this document can be found @ http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage under Wildlife Damage – WS Program Directives.

#110 – weasel, mink, ground squirrels • #120 – muskrat, American marten, prairie dog • #220 – nutria, raccoon, skunk, fisher, Virginia opossum • #330 – beaver, river otter

 Snap traps are common household traps used for rats or mice. Snap traps (Figure 2) are available in many designs and shapes but generally consist of a rectangular wooden or plastic base, a spring, a hammer, a catch, and a holding bar. The spring is designed to hold the hammer down on the base when closed; however, setting or opening the hammer applies tension on Figure 2. Standard snap trap the spring. The holding bar, which is placed over the hammer to prevent the for mice. (Picture from hammer from closing, is attached to the catch. The catch is designed to Amazon.com) hold the bar in place while the spring is under tension. The catch is generally baited to attract a target animal. As the target animal attempts to feed on the bait, the catch is tripped causing the holding bar to release and allowing the spring to forcibly close the hammer onto the target animal.

 Mole/Gopher traps generally operate in a similar manner to snap traps. Like snap traps, traps for moles and gophers generally consist of a spring, catch, holding bar, and a hammer. Traps are available in a wide variety of designs with most traps being placed underground in the tunnels of moles and gophers. Designs vary but generally the traps are designed to impale or grip moles or gophers inside their tunnels after they trigger the trap.

One of the more common mole traps is a spring-powered harpoon trap (Figure 3). As moles tunnel just under the soil surface, they push the soil upward causing ridges to occur. The harpoon trap is set on the soil surface so the catch extends perpendicular across an active tunnel after the soil has been pressed downward to block the tunnel. As the mole pushes soil upward to re-open the tunnel, the upward force of the soil trips the catch, which releases the tension on the Figure 3. A harpoon -style mole trap, spring and forces the sharp metal spikes downward into the soil to which works best for star-nosed impale the mole. moles. (Picture @ amazon.com)

Other mole trap designs are generally referred to as scissor-jawed traps (Figure 4) and choker loop traps, which operate under a similar principle to snap traps and are set in a similar way to harpoon traps. However, the hammer of a scissor-jawed trap consists of four arms that open when set and close quickly when triggered by a mole. The latch is released when a mole pushes up on the trap pan that the “dog’ is secured to. The arms close with tremendous force gripping the mole underground. Choker loop traps consist of two “metal loops” with the catch located between the two loops. Choker loop traps are set across a tunnel so the mole enters inside the loop and contacts the catch. When the mole contacts the catch, the holding arm releases causing Figure 4. Mole scissors trap (Victor® the spring to uncoil. As the spring uncoils, the loops are rapidly pulled Out O’Sight Mole Trap) with setting upward toward the frame of trap, which grips the mole. device. (Picture @ homedepot.com)

Like mole traps, gopher traps (Figure 5) are available in a variety of designs but generally, the use patterns and function are the same. Gopher traps also generally consist of a spring, hammer, holding arm, and catch. Gopher traps are also set in tunnels so the target gopher trips the catch, which releases the holding arm causing the spring to uncoil. For most gopher traps, the hammer consists of arms that have sharp metal barbs at the end of the arm that impales and grips the gopher when closed. Designs also include traps that use a “loop” design similar to those designs described for choker loop traps intended for moles.

 Captive bolt traps use compressed carbon dioxide to fire a captive Figure 5. A set Macabee Gopher bolt when a target animal trips the trigger, which is inside in a tube Trap. (Picture @ amazon.com) (Franklin 2013). The trap uses a chemical lure to draw a target animal to insert its head into a small funnel or tube. The trigger for the trap is located inside the small funnel or tube. As the animal inserts its head into the funnel or tube to access the lure, the trigger is tripped, the compressed carbon dioxide is released forcing the captive bolt to forcefully impact the head of the target animal inside the funnel or tube. The trap is designed to use cartridges containing compress carbon dioxide, which allows the trap to reset and fire again when another target animal is drawn to the lure and trips the trigger inside the funnel or tube. Captive bolt traps (Figure 6) were developed in New Zealand to meet humane standards. WS has not used these traps, but will likely do so in the future. Figure 6. Captive bolt trap (Goodnature A24) 1.2 Use Pattern of Quick-kill Traps attached to a tree on left. (Picture @ https://www.goodnature.co.nz) WS targets mostly mammalian species with quick-kill traps, especially aquatic rodents (80%), burrowing rodents (12%), predators (5%), and terrestrial rodents (3%) (Table 1a, 1b, and 1c). Mammals are taken to protect a variety of resources including property, agriculture, human health and safety, and natural resources as well as conduct population sampling (small rodents) to determine abundance. Most quick-kill traps are lethal, but many nontarget animals, primarily turtles, are released alive (96% of the nontargets released).

From FY114 to FY15, WS used quick-kill traps to capture an annual average of 21,130 target animals of 90 species (Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c)5. WS caught target animals in rotating-jaw traps (92.4% of capture), snap and spring traps (4.3%), and gopher and mole traps (3.3%). Mammals accounted for 99.9% of the target take with quick-kill traps, and birds and reptiles 0.1% (Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c). The use of quick-kill traps by WS is primarily associated with aquatic rodent damage management. The three aquatic rodents accounted for 75% of all take, other rodents and rabbits 11%, predators 7%, and reptiles, mostly nontarget, 4%.

4 FY11 equals the federal Fiscal Year 2011 which is October 1, 2010-September 30, 2011 (the year is denoted by FY11, FY12, and so on and is the federal Fiscal Year for 2011, 2012, and so on. 5 The number of species between Tables 1a, b, and c is greater than the summary of the 3 tables since the same species may be captured by more than one category of methods.

WS captured an annual average of 1,457 nontarget species of 83 species, and possibly 3 additional species from unknown take sources (unknown turtles and fish), which was 99.7% take with rotating-jaw traps and 0.3% in snap traps from FY11 through FY15. Spring traps and mole/gopher traps did not capture any nontarget species. For nontarget species, reptiles accounted for 54.2% of the take, while mammals accounted for 43.5%, birds 1.9%, and amphibians and fish 0.4% (Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c).

Table 1a. The annual average number of target and nontarget animals captured with quick-kill traps by WS in WDM activities from FY11 to FY15 throughout the United States. ANNUAL AVERAGE SPECIES TAKEN WITH ROTATING-JAW TRAPS TARGET NONTARGET SPECIES Killed Freed Killed Freed American Beaver 15,696 0 0.2 0 Muskrat 393 0 123 0 Nutria 816 0 9 0 Woodchuck 640 0 0.6 0 Yellow-bellied Marmot 258 0 0 0 California Ground Squirrel 618 0 0 0 Eastern Cottontail 11 0 3 0 Desert Cottontail 29 0 0 0 Other Rodents & Rabbits (13T, 4NT – 14 spp.)1 25 0 1 0 Virginia Opossum 47 0 5 0.2 Small Asian Mongoose 88 0 0 0 Red Fox 9 0 2 0 River Otter 68 0 374 10 Mink 28 0 3 0 Raccoon 88 0 89 2 Striped Skunk 695 0 2 0 Other Predators (11T, 7NT – 14 spp.) 1 14 0.4 4 0.2 Other Mammals (2T, 2NT – 3spp.) 1 1 0 2 0 Birds (3T, 26NT – 27 spp.) 1 0.6 0.2 23 2 American Alligator 0 0 6 6 Pond Slider 0 0 22 27 Northern Painted Turtle 0 0 8 13 Common Snapping Turtle 2 2 229 460 Other Reptile (1T, 8NT, 9 spp. + Unid.SC turtles – 4 possible, 1 more sp.) 0.2 0 7 11 American Bullfrog 0 0 0 0.4 Fish (8NT, 8 spp. + Unidentified SC fish - 11 possible-2 max 6 new) 0 0 5 2 BODY GRIP TOTAL (45T, 74NT – 98 spp.) 19,527 3 918 534 1 Individual accounts of species are only given for those species that had an annual average of more than 10 killed or are T&E/sensitive species. All “Other” animals are given in Appendix 1. * Introduced Species T – Target NT – (# T and NT species in group, # spp. is all species in group including T and NT)

2 HAZARDS

2.1 Human Health and Safety

Threats to human health and safety associated with quick-kill traps vary with trap size and the type of trap. For snap traps and body-grip traps, injuries could range from cuts, bruises, or abrasions on fingers and hands to broken or fractured bones if a trap was accidently tripped. In extreme scenarios, a person could drown if a body-grip trap closes on both hands and the person falls into deeper water, especially if the person was wearing hip or chest waders, which is common when setting body-grip traps in water sets. Hazards associated with gopher and mole traps include cuts, bruises, and punctures to hands and feet. Injuries to the fingers or hand could occur if someone tripped the trigger inside a captive bolt trap. Safety hazards are usually related to setting, placing, checking, or removing the traps. The setting and removing of quick-kill traps requires repeated bending, kneeling, and pounding and pulling stakes from the ground, which may lead to back sprains. Although quick-kill traps are designed to cause the rapid death of a target animal, on occasion,

animals may be captured alive in the traps; therefore, the removal of animals from various traps may result in animal bites or scratches.

Table 1b. The annual average number of target and nontarget animals captured with snap and spring quick-kill traps by WS in WDM activities from FY11 to FY15 throughout the United States ANNUAL AVERAGE SPECIES TAKEN WITH SNAP AND SPRING (e.g., DOC 150-200-250) TRAPS TARGET NONTARGET SPECIES Killed Freed Killed Freed Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel 15 0 0 0 Round-tailed Ground Squirrel 63 0 0 0 Eastern Chipmunk 19 0 0.4 0 Prairie Vole 79 0 0 0 Meadow Vole 68 0 0.2 0 Woodland (Pine) Vole 15 0 0 0 North American Deermouse 72 0 0 0 White-footed Deermouse 48 0 0.8 0 House Mouse 18 0 0 0 Brown (Norway) Rat 27 0 0 0 Pacific (Polynesian) Rat* 163 0 0 0 Black Rat 219 0 0 0 Other Rodents (7T, 1NT – 8 spp.) 9 0 0.8 0 North American Least Shrew 14 0 0 0 Other Insectivores (5T, 1NT – 5 spp.) 6 0 1 0 Small Asian Mongoose 62 0 0 0 Other Predators (2T – 2 spp.) 3 0 0 0 Birds (10T, 7 NT – 14 spp.) 10 0 2 0 Snakes (2T, 1NT – 3 spp.) 0.6 0 0.2 0 SNAP/SPRING TRAP TOTAL (40T, 13 NT – 46 spp.) 910 0 5 0 1 Individual accounts of species are only given for those species that had an annual average of more than 10 killed or 1,000 dispersed, or are T&E/sensitive species. Other animals are given in Appendix 1. * Introduced Species T – Target NT – (# T and NT species in group, # spp. is all species in group including T and NT)

Table 1c. The annual average number of target and nontarget animals captured with quick-kill, gopher/mole traps, by WS in WDM activities from FY11 to FY15 throughout the United States. ANNUAL AVERAGE SPECIES TAKEN WITH GOPHER/MOLE TRAPS TARGET NONTARGET SPECIES Killed Freed Killed Freed Yellow-faced Pocket Gopher 138 0 0 0 Plains Pocket Gopher 40 0 0 0 Botta’s Pocket Gopher 200 0 0 0 Camas Pocket Gopher 272 0 0 0 Other Rodents (5T – 5 spp.) 8 0 0 0 Eastern Mole 17 0 0 0 Broad-footed Mole 0.2 0 0 0 Coast Mole 18 0 0 0 GOPHER/MOLE TRAP TOTAL (12T- 12 spp.) 693 0 0 0 AVE. ANIMALS TAKEN WITH ALL QUICK-KILL TRAPS (Tables 1a,b,c) 21,130 3 923 534 % TARGET AND NONTARGET SPECIES TAKEN 93.5% 0.01% 4.1% 2.4% 1 Individual accounts of species are only given for those species that had an annual average of more than 10 killed or 1,000 dispersed, or are T&E/sensitive species. Other animals are given in Appendix 1. * Introduced Species T – Target NT – (# T and NT species in group, # spp. is all species in group including T and NT)

2.2 Environmental

Environmental hazards associated with quick-kill traps are associated with the unintentional lethal removal of nontarget animals and the humaneness of the traps. By definition, quick-kill traps are rapidly lethal to most animals captured in them. Although intended to rapidly kill a target animal, quick-kill traps may unintentionally live-capture target and nontarget animals. If animals are live-captured, injuries and stress could occur. Injuries could range from cuts, bruises, abrasions, or broken bones. Some animals may struggle to escape, which

may cause severe injuries. The stress and injuries that could occur to animals unintentionally live-captured in quick-kill traps would be similar to the stress and injuries experienced when live capture occurs in foothold traps (see the Foothold Trap Risk Assessment). If injuries were severe, WS personnel would euthanize those animals.

WS personnel may sometimes use lures and food attractants in conjunction with quick-kill traps; however, relatively small quantities are used and those items are not hazardous. For example, when conducting small rodent surveys at airports, WS personnel may place a small amount of peanut butter mixed with crimped oats or cracked, mixed grain on the trigger of the trap. When using rotating-jaw traps, personnel often place the bait or lure so the target animal must pass through the trap to access the attractant. For example, when using box traps (i.e., rotating-jaw trap recessed inside a box or other container), personnel may place marshmallows at the back of the container so a target raccoon must pass through the trap to access the bait. Beaver have scent glands that they use to mark their territories, which people can harvest and make into lure. WS personnel can use those lures to attract other beaver when using rotating-jaw traps. For example, personnel may partially submerge a rotating-jaw trap in water and create a scent mound using a lure made from the scent glands of beaver. To ensure the beaver must pass through the rotating-jaw trap to access the scent mound, WS personnel can use sticks to block access to the mound and funnel the target beaver to the trap. Therefore, lures and food attractants used to attract target animals would not be substances that would bioaccumulate in the environment and those attractants would not cause environmental harm.

3 RISKS

3.1 Human Health and Safety

Risks of human injury associated with the use of quick-kill traps are generally restricted to the users of these devices. However, the potential use of quick-kill traps in both rural and urban environments results in exposure risks to the public. Risks to the public would primarily be restricted to property or resource owners or managers, or employees who receive assistance from WS that tamper with or unknowingly encounter a quick-kill trap. The resource owner or manager would be made aware of the types of methods being used by WS and the general location of those methods on the property they own or manage, which reduces the risks to the public. Before using any method, the resource owner or manager requesting assistance would sign a work initiation document or another similar document, which would specify what methods the owner or manager would allow WS to use on the property they own or manage. Therefore, the owner or manager would be aware of the methods that WS could use to resolve their specific request for assistance. WS personnel could also use quick-kill traps on public lands when requested and would discuss use of such in work plan meetings. Under WS Directive 2.450, employees must post appropriate warning signs on the main entrances or commonly used access points to areas where employees are using rotating-jaw traps.

In addition, WS personnel that use rotating-jaw traps with a jaw spread greater than eight inches must use those traps in water sets (i.e., partially or completely submerged in water) unless a State Director approves exemptions on a case by case basis. As discussed previously, State Directors may approve exemptions to this requirement when people cannot access the trapping location by road or by foot, the use of other trapping tools and techniques have proven to be ineffective, and must be in compliance with state and local ordinances and BMPs (see WS Directive 2.450).

Quick-kill traps are passive, mechanical methods that, if left undisturbed, would pose a minimal risk to the public. However, if people intentionally tamper with or unknowingly step on or in a quick-kill trap, depending

the style, injuries could occur. The public, though, did not have any known injuries from quick-kill traps set by WS from FY06 to FY15, or even longer.

WS field and office employees filed an annual average of 79 Office of Workmen’s Compensation (OWCP) claims for strained backs, lacerations, animal bites, burns, and other injuries that occurred on the job from FY13 to FY15. Of these, 0.7 injuries annually were related to the use quick-kill traps. Both injuries were compression and contusion injuries to the hand. One resulted in an infected nail bed that was later treated. Both these injuries occurred while handling conibear traps in the field. Additionally, WS employees had an average of 19 injuries from falls, slips, twists, and repetitive activities that resulted in lacerations, sprains, contusions, strains, compression bruises, and fractures that were associated with field activities, but the injury was not readily associated with any specific activity such as setting quick-kill traps. Considering the number of employees (~1,900), these claims are relatively few for the number of hours spent afield (the OWCP claims from FY13 to FY15 also includes office employees and injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome). Thus, risks of setting quick-kill are relatively minor to employees.

Typically, most animals are killed with the use of quick-kill traps and injuries to WS personnel from animal bites is not a problem. WS personnel did have an annual average of 3 bites or injuries from handling live animals for FY13 to FY15. Most bites were associated with releasing an animal. Since several animals are released alive, especially turtles, a bite could occur while handling them. However, this is expected to be minimal since the bite ratio (quick-kill traps were not included) was 1 bite per 18,000 animals taken. Therefore, it is expected that a bite could occur with the use of quick-kill traps, but infrequently because the majority of traps are lethal.

The use of all quick-kill traps by WS employees must comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to animal capture for managing wildlife damage in accordance with WS Directive 2.210. WS personnel can only use traps and trapping devices after the landowner or their designee grants WS the appropriate authorization by signing a work initiation document. All employees whose duties involve animal capture are encouraged to participate in a WS approved trapper education course as recommended by the BMP guidelines (AFWA 2017), which can help WS personnel identify and consider risks to human safety when conducting activities.

Injuries to WS personnel are negligible, with no reports of contact or injury to the public. Quick-kill traps are relatively harmless to the public when used correctly, especially in aquatic sets. WS will typically not use quick-kill traps on land frequented by people. Quick-kill traps such as conibear traps are submerged under water when catching beaver. When near water with quick-kill traps humans are expected to be cautious. The top of the trap is usually visible, unless hidden by a dive stick, and detectable to humans.

3.2 Environmental

WS recognizes that the use of quick-kill traps results in nontarget species take, but strives to minimize this. The different sizes, shapes, and behaviors of the animals that WS personnel could target with quick-kill traps influence how those animals approach traps (AFWA 2017). WS personnel enhance the selectivity of quick-kill traps by placement, trap size, trigger configurations, and baits. For example, when using rotating-jaw traps, personnel can reduce the risk of capturing nontarget animals by using recessed sets (i.e., placing trap inside a cubby, cage, or burrow), restricting openings, or by elevating traps. In another example, when targeting beaver, personnel can set rotating-jaw traps underwater to minimize risks to nontarget animals. Choosing appropriately sized traps for the target species can also exclude nontarget animals by preventing larger

animals from entering and triggering the trap. WS personnel can also modify the trigger configurations of traps to minimize nontarget capture. For example, offsetting the trigger can allow nontarget animals to pass through rotating-jaw traps without capture.

WS recognizes that quick-kill traps do result in the death or injury of nontarget wildlife and domestic animals, an annual average of 918 from FY11 to FY15 that could not be released (4% of all the animals taken with an additional 2% nontargets released). Most of these, specifically, are associated with conducting beaver damage management.

As for domestic animals from FY11 to FY15, an annual average of 2 feral cats, 0.6 feral dogs, and 0.2 feral ducks were killed by quick-kill traps. For the amount of work effort, this is a minimal number. Free-roaming dogs are at the highest risk for being taken in a conibear set, especially dogs associated with water; however, this is typically a minimal risk.

River otters are at the highest risk of nontarget species being taken lethally in beaver damage management, especially as their population continues to increase nationally. AFWA (2016) recommendations to avoid capturing river otter when targeting beaver included:

 Staying alert for the presence of river otter sign  Be cautious about using traps sets at high probability river otter travel-ways, particularly dam crossings, inlets and outlets to ponds/lakes, narrow streams and ditches that connect to other water bodies, crossover trails along shorelines, dikes, and culverts, and the entrances to inactive beaver bank dens or lodges  Use baited beaver sets where possible  Avoid using beaver lures that may attract river otters  Consider the use of a “side-parallel” position for the trigger wires on rotating-jaw traps (moving the trigger as far as possible to one side of the trap)  Consider the use of tension-adjustable triggers or two-way triggers (those that do not spring when pushed sideways

Other trigger modifications may also reduce the risk of capturing beaver, such as cutting or bending the trigger wires so they are only four or five inches long.

Quick-kill traps are mechanical methods that would not result in the bioaccumulation of chemicals in the environment.

4 UNCERTAINTIES AND CUMMALATIVE EFFECTS

Uncertainty in this risk assessment is negligible as WS has about 100 years using various quick-kill traps for WDM activities and understands potential risks of using the variety of available. The knowledge gained from this experience has helped reduce uncertainties.

Cumulative impacts are not expected to occur to target and nontarget animals. However, cumulative impacts are addressed in National Environmental Policy Act documents such as WS (2016) and found not to be significant to any native population. Additional, the “Introduction to Risk Assessments for Methods Used in Wildlife Damage Management” looks at all take from all WDM activities by WS and none shows a significant

level of take for any native species. From a human health perspective, the use of quick-kill traps in WDM will not have any known cumulative impacts.

5 SUMMARY

WS uses quick-kill traps as a component of an integrated approach to managing wildlife issues for several rodent and a few predator species. APHIS WS works cooperatively with other natural resource agencies at the state, national and international level to develop effective and humane trapping measures while minimizing exposure to human health and nontarget animals. Quick-kill traps offer a comparatively low risk to human health and the environment compared to other trapping methods, and their use is fairly selective for the targeted animals. Advancements in the design of quick-kill traps and the response time to handling animals that are not killed have resulted in more effective and humane trapping of target animals while dramatically reducing the potential for nontarget captures. WS will continue to support and conduct research that supports more humane and effective trapping methods, and implement these measures in their programs, where appropriate, to further reduce risk to nontarget animals.

6 LITERATURE CITED

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). 2016. Best Management Practices for Trapping Beaver in the United States. AFWA, The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies. @ http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/Beaver_BMP_2016.pdf. Accessed 11/30/2017.

_____ AFWA. 2017. Best Management Practices for Trapping in the United States. AFWA, The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies. @ http://fishwildlife.org/?section=best_management_practices. Accessed 11/30/2017.

Batcheller, G. R., T. A. Decker, D. A. Hamilton, and J. F. Organ. 2000. A vision for the future of furbearer management in the United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28(4):833-840.

Fall, M. W. 2002. The search for acceptable animal traps. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 20:31-377.

Franklin, K. 2013. Informational report on the use of Goodnature® A24 rat traps in Hawaii. Pac. Coop. Studies Unit, Univ. Hawaii, Oahu Army Natural Resources Program Sept. 19. 20 pp.

Wildlife Services (WS). 2016. Aquatic mammal damage management in Texas. Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Record of Decision. 12/22/2016. USDA-APHIS-WS, San Antonio, TX. 166 pp.

7 PREPARERS

7.1 APHIS WS Methods Risk Assessment Committee

Writers for “Use of Quick-kill Traps in Wildlife Damage Management Risk Assessment”:

Writer: Thomas C. Hall Position: USDA-APHIS-WS, Operational Support Staff, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Fort Collins, CO Education: BS Biology (Natural History) and BA Psychology – Fort Lewis College; MS Wildlife Ecology – Oklahoma State University Experience: Special expertise in wildlife biology, identification, ecology, and damage management. Thirty- two years of service in APHIS Wildlife Services including operations and research in CO for research and OR, GU, CA, OK, and NV for operations conducting a wide variety of programs including bird damage research

and management, livestock protection (predators and birds), invasive species management, wildlife hazard management at airports, property and natural resource protection including waterfowl, brown tree snake, feral swine, rodent, and beaver damage management. Expert in preparing environmental documents for WS programs to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. For quick- kill traps specifically, used all types of quick-kill traps in WDM and supervised employees that used them in their duties.

Writer: Ryan Wimberly Position: USDA-APHIS-WS, Operational Support Staff, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Madison, TN Education: BS Wildlife Management and Ecology – Northwest Missouri State University Experience: Special expertise in wildlife biology, ecology, and damage management. Seventeen years of service with APHIS Wildlife Services, including operations and research, conducting a wide variety of programs, including bird damage research and management, livestock protection, invasive species management, wildlife hazard management at airports, property, and natural resource protection. Expert in preparing environmental documents for WS programs to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Editors/Contributors for “Use of Quick-kill traps in Wildlife Damage Management Risk Assessment”:

Reviewer: Michael Green Position: USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services (WS), Environmental Coordinator, Fredrick, MD Education: BS Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, University of Tennessee Experience: Special expertise in wildlife biology, ecology, and damage management. Eleven years of work experience with WS in MD and VA. Experienced in a wide range of program activities including nutria eradication, airport wildlife management, and wildlife damage management to protect livestock, aquaculture, public safety, and natural resources. Served as staff biologist in WS Headquarters for two years.

Editor/Contributor: Andrea Lemay Position: USDA-APHIS-Policy and Program Development (PPD), Environmental and Risk Analysis Services (ERAS), Biological Scientist, Raleigh, NC Education: BS Plant and Soil Science (Biotechnology) - University of Massachusetts; MS Plant Pathology - North Carolina State University Experience: Thirteen years of service in APHIS conducting risk analysis. Four years of experience in preparing environmental analyses in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Editor/Contributor: Fan Wang-Cahill Position: USDA-APHIS-Policy and Program Development (PPD), Environmental and Risk Analysis Services (ERAS), Environmental Health Specialist Riverdale, MD Education: B.S. Biology and M.S. Hydrobiology - Jinan University, Guangzhou, China; Ph.D. Botany (Ultrastructure/Cell Biology) – Miami University Experience: Joined APHIS in 2012, preparing human health risk assessments and providing assistance on environmental compliance. Prior experience before joining APHIS includes 18 years environmental consulting experience specializing in human health risk assessments for environmental contaminants at Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and state-regulated contaminated facilities.

Editor/Contributor: Jim Warren Position: USDA-APHIS-Policy and Program Development (PPD), Environmental and Risk Analysis Services (ERAS), Environmental Toxicologist, Little Rock, AR Education: B.S. Forest Ecology and M.S. Entomology – University of Missouri; Ph.D. Environmental Toxicology – Clemson University Experience: Eight years of experience working for APHIS preparing ecological risk assessments and providing assistance on environmental compliance. Prior experience before joining APHIS includes other government and private sector work regarding ecological risk assessments related to various environmental regulations.

Data Contributor: Joey Millison Position: USDA-APHIS-WS Information and Technology (IT), Junior Applications Developer Education: Information and Technology coursework from various sources Experience: Eleven years of experience in APHIS, WS Management Information System (MIS) Group. Retrieves WS field data from the MIS for writers, reviewers, and editors.

7.2 Internal Reviewers

USDA APHIS Wildlife Services

Reviewer: Gary Littauer Position: USDA-APHIS-WS, Assistant Regional Director/Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Fort Collins, CO Education: BS Wildlife Management Iowa State Univ., MS Biology, New Mexico State University Experience: Special expertise in wildlife biology, ecology, and damage management including supervising an aerial operation program. Thirty years of service for APHIS-WS in TX, MS, and NM in a wide variety of programs (livestock, aquaculture, property, human health and safety, and natural resource protection) including predator, beaver, and rodent damage management activities.

Appendix 1. “Other Species” Included in Tables

Table 1a BODY GRIP TRAPS Other rodents and rabbits = mountain beaver, black-tailed prairie dog, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, rock squirrel, porcupine, eastern gray squirrel, eastern fox squirrel, bushy-tailed woodrat, desert woodrat, brown rat, mountain cottontail, feral rabbit, and black-tailed jackrabbit. Other predator = badger, black bear, bobcat, feral cat, coyote, feral dog, long-tailed weasel, short-tailed weasel, least weasel, marten, fisher, arctic fox, gray fox, western spotted skunk. Other mammals = armadillo, feral swine, white-tailed deer. Birds = European starling, common grackle, Eurasian collared-dove, Canada goose, trumpeter swan, wood duck, American black duck, feral domestic and wild mallard, blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, common merganser, hooded merganser, red-breasted merganser, American crow, northwestern crow, common raven, Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, barn owl, burrowing owl, pied-billed grebe, double-crested cormorant, American bittern, great blue heron, American coot, Virginia rail, and wild turkey Other reptiles = southern painted turtle, false map turtle, river cooter, Texas cooter, alligator snapping turtle, common musk turtle, smooth softshell turtle, spiny softshell, unidentified turtle (SC – chicken turtle, pond slider, river cooter, and spiny softshell), and gophersnake Other fish = bowfin, common carp, white sucker, black bullhead, yellow bullhead, brown bullhead, channel catfish, largemouth bass, and unidentified fish (SC -shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeonT&E, longnose gar, bowfin, common carp, grass carp, spotted sucker, lake chubsucker, white catfish, brown bullhead, yellow bullhead, striped bass, and largemouth bass)

Table 1b. SNAP/SPRING TRAP Other rodents = eastern gray squirrel, red squirrel, Mexican ground squirrel, Richardson’s ground squirrel, California vole, northern red-backed vole, Ord’s kangaroo rat, and eastern woodrat, Other insectivores = American pygmy shrew, cinereus (masked) shrew, Elliott’s short-tailed shrew, northern short-tailed shrew, and eastern mole. Other predators = feral cat and short-tailed weasel Birds = European starling, brown-headed cowbird, rock pigeon*, mourning dove, golden-fronted woodpecker, northern flicker, eastern phoebe, California towhee, eastern towhee, savannah sparrow, gray catbird, American robin, house finch, and house sparrow* Snakes = common gartersnake, gophersnake, and common kingsnake

Table 1c GOPHER/MOLE TRAPS Other rodents = Mexican ground squirrel, desert pocket gopher, Texas pocket gopher, northern pocket gopher, and western pocket gopher